There Cannot Be Any Discrimination Regarding Reimbursement Of Expenses Made By Person Suffering From Mental & Physical Illnesses: Jharkhand HC
The case centered around the issue of whether a person can be denied reimbursement for mental health treatment under the company’s medical insurance scheme.
The Jharkhand High Court ruled that under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, there can be no discrimination between physical and mental illnesses regarding medical reimbursements.
The case centered around the issue of whether a person can be denied reimbursement for mental health treatment under the company’s medical insurance scheme.
A Bench of Justice Ananda Sen said, “From Section 21 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which has been dealt with elaborately in the foregoing paragraphs, I come to the conclusion that there cannot be any discrimination in respect of reimbursement of expenses made by a person suffering from physical illness and mental illness.”
Advocate Gyan Ranjan represented the petitioner, while Advocate Swati Shalini appeared for the Respondent.
The Court said, “In one line it can be summarized that there cannot be any difference so far as treatment and giving other facilities, between a mentally ill person or a physically ill person. Both of them are kept on the same pedestal so far as treatment is concerned without any discrimination."
The Court observed that the Mental Healthcare Act mandates equal treatment for both mental and physical illnesses in medical reimbursement schemes. Specifically, Section 21(4) of the Act requires that insurers provide coverage for mental illness treatment on the same terms as physical illness. The Court added, “The aforesaid statutory dictate mandates all the health insurers to make provision for treating mental illness in a similar manner as is done in respect of persons with physical illness. This is also an equality clause, which eliminates discrimination when it comes to medical insurance or reimbursement for treatment of mental illness. By virtue of this statutory provision, there cannot be any exclusion clause to exclude reimbursement of expenses incurred for treating mental ailment or psychiatric treatment in any health insurance policy,”
The Court emphasized, “Coal India Limited and its subsidiary companies are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Their action or any resolution, which they adopt cannot be contrary to the provisions of any Statute promulgated by the legislatures, herein the Parliament of India. If any resolution or a part of the resolution, adopted by the Board, is in conflict with any parliamentary legislation, that part of the resolution will become null and void and the same cannot be given effect to,”
The Court further stated that the exclusion of psychiatric treatment from the CPRMS became legally invalid after the passage of the Mental Healthcare Act, which specifically mandates equal treatment for both physical and mental illnesses.
As a result, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing Bharat Coking Coal Limited to reimburse the expenses incurred for his wife’s psychiatric treatment.
Cause Title: Santosh Kumar Verma v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Ors.
